征集审稿意见啦~~（不怕没奖励，就怕不参与） - 专业外语

版块导航: 正在加载中...

客户端APP下载

论文辅导

申博辅导

登录注册

应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3987)
>虫友互识 (654)
>文献求助 (249)
>导师招生 (165)
>休闲灌水 (103)
>招聘信息布告栏 (93)
>考博 (80)
>博后之家 (67)
>论文投稿 (48)
>硕博家园 (33)
>教师之家 (27)
>考研 (24)
>晶体 (23)
>论文道贺祈福 (22)
>公派出国 (21)
>基金申请 (17)

返回列表

userhung

禁虫 (文学泰斗)

应助: 1505 (讲师)
贵宾: 1.347
金币: 107941
帖子: 122982
在线: 4265.2小时
虫号: 119626

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
zhtear99: 金币+18, 感谢你和大家分享这些，很受教也很有指导意义~ 2012-12-01 13:03:44
zhtear99: 回帖置顶 2012-12-01 13:04:02

投稿和审稿的一些片段想法

1. 当一篇文章被退稿的时候，审稿人提了一堆意见，叫补这个实验那个实验。可以说，有水平的投稿人就象高中老师一样，能够“猜题”，知道什么东西“在考纲范围之内”，什么东西不需要，预先把审稿人要做的实验做好，加到文章里去。可以说，很多文章都处在临界点上，正好缺这些数据就是打不中，而就是加这点数据正好“及格”了！知道这些道理后，一个有用的方法是请实验室其他真正能够直言的、有经验的同仁提尖锐意见。导师在这里也起到很重要作用。

2. 投稿的奥妙，用田忌赛马的语言来说，就是：如果用下等马去和别人的上等马去较量，必然打不过人家。曾经一个学术大师告诉我，经验规则是投稿者自己判断文章的水平，要使自己的文章比目标杂志平均水平高一点才能确保命中率。而“投稿者自己判断文章的水平”是一门学问，有的人就是能够预测未来，知道自己文章的命运。为什么文章命中那么重要呢？有个单词叫credibility，意思是说如果自己都不知道自己的文章应该投什么杂志，投文章老是退稿，那么编辑又怎么能把投稿者当一回事呢？对别人的工作要客观，对自己的工作要客观。很多指导写作的理论书都说，写文章的时候，作者必须“往后退几步”，冷静地判断自己科研工作的意义和价值，而不能产生“晕轮效应”。

3. 大学里，前十几名同学都可以拿A，有的同学不用考试就知道他稳拿第一名了，他却还开夜车，搞得周围的人很紧张。在撰写科研论文的时候也是这样，如果你的目标杂志只是普通杂志，并且你文章的内容远远超过“及格”标准了，那么就是要走“保守主义”路线，也就是说要避免奇谈怪论，避免oversell和controversial的东西。审稿人的审美观是不一样的。如果你炒作概念，运气好也许能中Nature。但是如果你已经确保能中普通杂志却还是炒作概念，那也许连普通杂志都中不了！

4. 学术论文不是新闻报道。很多两页快报放两张电子显微镜照片，说合成出吸引眼球的纳米材料，效果其好无比。但是为什么效果其好无比呢？文章里没有说，而是说“后续研究正在进行中”，结果过了几年，没有看到什么“后续报道”。这样的文章，随着时间的推移，越来越难被好杂志的审稿人接受了。

5. 追求的是实实在在的东西。在乎的不是“PNAS, to be submitted”，而是“Catalysis Letters, published”。雷声大、雨点小就好比台湾政客，选举的时候空头支票开了很多，当选后没有一件事情办成的。必须要有真抓实干的精神，饭要一口一口吃，事情要一件一件做，文章要一篇一篇发。

赞一下(2人)

回复此楼

51楼2012-12-01 10:54:15

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

zhtear99

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)

zhtear99: 回帖置顶 2012-12-05 19:48:11

研究方向：计算机辅助药物设计
投稿杂志名称：International Journal of Molecular Sciences
审稿意见：
Reviewer 1#
1) This paper is well organized and of interest in the field, but some points must be clarified and discussed before it can be suitable of publication.
2) On page 3, line 113: "required empirical potential energy function" must be substituted with "force field parameters" since the term is wrong.
A question on page 4 paragraph lines 118-121: How can the authors be sure that the most conformational analysis been made on each of these tow compounds? This point of course is crucial for a correct alignment and thus further analysis.
3) On page 7, another perplexity: How can the authors be sure that the crystallized water are indeed structural for the template protein too? Are there any experimental evidence? I suggest to repeat the docking calculations also in absence of water inside the cleft and tentatively compare the results obtained. This point of is crucial since all the discussion about the molecular interactions is linked to structural water playing a fundamental role in stabilization.
4) On page 11, figure 5: line 322-323: "tubes" instead of "ball and stick".

Reviewer 1#
Considering the situation that no X-ray structure of human proteasome exists, making good models of the enzyme as inhibitor-bound form help researchers conduct SAR study efficiently. The computational studies in this manuscript almost meet the demand. However, both compounds dealt with in this manuscript are covalent inhibitors. The reviewer would like the authors to state any good reason why only non-covalent interactions were considered in the calculations. Especially, TBA is believed to make reversible borate adduct form to display proteasome-inhibitory activity, and the bound structure should be more suitable to evaluate results from SAR studies on the compounds of this class. Recalculations is requested if needed.
On the top of that, the following should be considered.
Line 68: What abbreviation MM means (multiple myeloma) should be indicated.
Line 101: "selected considered having a similar range" is grammatically incorrect.
Line 227: change energy to energetically
throuout: Usually, "big" is not used scientific articles like this. Change to large, bulky or other appropriate words.
个人感想：两个审稿人给的意见都很好。两位审稿人比我还细心，我没检查出来的明显错误被他们看出来了（囧ing），而且第二个审稿人对我们做的proteasome很了解。讲一下当时投稿发生的小插曲吧。这家杂志是让投稿人自己推荐审稿人的。师姐说一般都在谷歌学术里搜一下，找几个QSAR方面的大牛就可以了。原因有二：一是大牛很厉害，可以提供很好很专业的审稿意见；二是大牛不会为难咱们这些小虾米。然后，我就这么着，找了俩大牛当审稿人。当时带我做实验的老师知道后，很光火，狠狠地训了我一顿。因为他跟这家杂志的几个审稿人很熟，如果我推荐他认识的那几个人当审稿人会比较保险。投完文章后，我惴惴不安，担心被拒，也觉得自己太自以为是了，没有事先问老师。最后，文章收到了revise。事实证明，师姐的话也是有道理的。所以说推荐审稿人的两种方式其实应该都可行的。
PS：IJMS是收费杂志，IF是2点几吧。我估摸着可能是收费的原因，所以接受率比较高吧。

[ Last edited by zhtear99 on 2012-12-1 at 14:50 ]

赞一下

回复此楼

52楼2012-12-01 14:41:40

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖

dyfkkk

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 13 (小学生)
金币: 909.3
帖子: 2963
在线: 473.3小时
虫号: 157052

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
zhtear99: 金币+15, 感谢来稿~~~ 2012-12-02 12:37:16
zhtear99: 回帖置顶 2012-12-02 12:37:18

去年投稿的审稿意见：
Reviewer A:

Comments for Reviewer's Assessment:
      The quality of English writing is very poor and the document must be
revised by an native english speaking person. See my remarks in the enclosed
file.

Comments for the Authors:
      Interesting paper with a good patent review. The document requires major modifications and answers to my remarks as proposed in the enclosed file.

Reviewer B:

Comments for Reviewer's Assessment:
      The authors review approaches for addressing naphthenic acid corrosion, including usage of inhibitors, solvent extraction, chemical conversion, thermal treatment, and hydrotreatment.  The review covers an important topic that will be of interest to the journals' readership and focuses upon patents between 2000 and 2011.  Whilst the manuscript provides a summary of the methods employed, it does not provide much detail, making it harder for the reader to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each.  The reviewer would recommend providing some additional description to strengthen the manuscript.

赞一下

回复此楼

53楼2012-12-02 11:38:32

已阅回复此楼关注TA 给TA发消息送TA红花 TA的回帖